perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] 9000 vs 8972 MTU configuration for PerfSONAR nodes?
Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion
List archive
- From: Matthew J Zekauskas <>
- To: <>
- Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] 9000 vs 8972 MTU configuration for PerfSONAR nodes?
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 18:30:16 -0400
- Authentication-results: internet2.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;internet2.edu; dmarc=none action=none header.from=internet2.edu;
- Ironport-phdr: 9a23:L24BFhDYq8S3LotMOxC5UyQJP3N1i/DPJgcQr6AfoPdwSP38oMbcNUDSrc9gkEXOFd2Crakb26yL6Ou5BCQp2tWojjMrSNR0TRgLiMEbzUQLIfWuLgnFFsPsdDEwB89YVVVorDmROElRH9viNRWJ+iXhpW1aJhKqYRJ4POruHYjblYGqzO2o05zVfwhSgjehO/V/IAjg/ivLscxDpIJ+NqY81VPr6klFeO1L3mBhPhrHmh/g+u+x+oJu6SJdp6hn+sJdB/apN58kRKBVWWx1e1s+49fm4EHO
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:0
The convention in higher ed has been to use 9000 flat for the edge
MTU when configuring "Jumbo frames". See this fairly old statement
for some background:
<http://noc.net.internet2.edu/i2network/maps-documentation/policy-statements.html#Jumbo
Frames> MTU is the total packet length with headers. The 8972
value is payload without headers to reach 9000 on the wire, so you
don't want to set interface MTU to 8972 or the packets you can
receive would max out at 8972 instead of 9000. More pointers including some of the downsides and things to watch out for are in this fasterdata article: <http://fasterdata.es.net/network-tuning/mtu-issues/> The switches (and everything else in that particular broadcast domain) need to also be at 9000 to have seamless operation. Switches and intermediate nodes/routers may need to be higher -- say the 9000 byte frame is packaged in a 802.1q VLAN, you need to add an extra 8 bytes for VLAN headers. I believe we just set link MTUs to be as high as they can be, and the particular (sub)interface MTU to be 9000. (Some of this is in the Internet2 statement.) If switch (or router) ports are not configured for large frames, then they will report "giant" errors if they receive a jumbo frame. --Matt On 8/11/16 6:11 PM, Jennewein, Douglas
M wrote:
|
- [perfsonar-user] perfSONAR on RHEL 6.8 causing server to hang at bootup, Daniel Manzo, 08/05/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] perfSONAR on RHEL 6.8 causing server to hang at bootup, Szymon Trocha, 08/08/2016
- Message not available
- Re: [perfsonar-user] perfSONAR on RHEL 6.8 causing server to hang at bootup, Szymon Trocha, 08/08/2016
- [perfsonar-user] 9000 vs 8972 MTU configuration for PerfSONAR nodes?, Jennewein, Douglas M, 08/11/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] 9000 vs 8972 MTU configuration for PerfSONAR nodes?, Matthew J Zekauskas, 08/11/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] 9000 vs 8972 MTU configuration for PerfSONAR nodes?, Jason Zurawski, 08/11/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] 9000 vs 8972 MTU configuration for PerfSONAR nodes?, Eli Dart, 08/11/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] 9000 vs 8972 MTU configuration for PerfSONAR nodes?, Matthew J Zekauskas, 08/11/2016
- [perfsonar-user] 9000 vs 8972 MTU configuration for PerfSONAR nodes?, Jennewein, Douglas M, 08/11/2016
- Re: [perfsonar-user] perfSONAR on RHEL 6.8 causing server to hang at bootup, Szymon Trocha, 08/08/2016
- Message not available
- Re: [perfsonar-user] perfSONAR on RHEL 6.8 causing server to hang at bootup, Szymon Trocha, 08/08/2016
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.